阿赫玛托娃与茨维塔耶娃都是20世纪俄罗斯诗坛的重要诗人。在诗艺复兴的白银时代，作为女性诗人的她们以独特的个性风格和诗歌美学确立了自己在俄国诗坛的地位，阿赫玛托娃被喻为“俄罗斯诗歌的月亮”，茨维塔耶娃被称为“20世纪俄罗斯第一诗人”，在她们之前的俄国文学史上还没有一位女性诗人能达到这样的高度。阿赫玛托娃是阿克梅派的代表人物，她以自己的创作忠实践行阿克梅派的诗学理论和美学纲领；茨维塔耶娃是一位特立独行的个性诗人，她终身保持本真单纯的文学观念，崇尚诗歌的独立与自由的精神。两位诗人虽然拥有极其不同的个性特点、诗歌风格和审美情趣，但是却一起经历了20世纪上半叶俄国社会的动荡，政治的疯狂，时代的严酷和命运的磨难。正是这种同中有异，异中有同，使得对她们的对比研究具有重要的学术价值。纵观国内外俄罗斯文学界对两位诗人的研究情况，大多数学者关注的主要是个体研究，尤其在我国学界，对这两位风格迥异的诗人的对比研究远未展开。本论文在前人的个体研究基础上，结合对俄罗斯文化语境和时代背景的观照，用对比的方法对两人的创作进行研究。首先，从诗人的个性与命运，交往与生平出发，追溯两位诗人在20世纪上半叶的生活与创作，以两人分别在国外的流亡生活和国内的诗学流亡来透视俄罗斯诗人的悲剧性命运。其次，论文通过爱情、城市、祖国几个创作主题对两位诗人的诗歌文本进行解读，展示两位女诗人不同的爱情观，不同的情感表达方式及对爱情与创作之关系的理解；呈现两位诗人在俄罗斯传统文化背景下就彼得堡主题和莫斯科主题所展开的竞争与对话；揭示她们在动荡时代做出的不同选择和对祖国“奇异”而炙热的爱。论文还通过对诗人的诗歌技艺的探讨，分析两位诗人在声响、词汇、语义等层面表现出的不同特点，比较两位诗人的创作意识和诗学特征，阐述两位诗人诗歌美学的独特构成。本论文坚持文学研究与历史文化语境相结合的原则，同时关注作品与其他文本的关系、作品与文学史的联系，得出了如下结论：从诗歌精神看，两位诗人最大的共同点表现在历经苦难也不改对诗歌和语言的忠诚，最大的不同在于她们对世界的哲学思考，茨维塔耶娃与世界的关系体现为“拒绝”，阿赫玛托娃体现为“接受”；从审美意识来看，两人的不同之处在于阿赫玛托娃体现为侧重写实的诗画观，茨维塔耶娃体现为表现自我的诗乐观；最大的共同点是她们都是现代主义诗人，都有着现代派艺术家共同的对世界、对艺术的悲剧性思考。阿赫玛托娃和茨维塔耶娃对后世的俄国诗坛产生了十分深远然而又完全不同的影响，本论文最后以布罗茨基为例对她们的影响进行了初步探讨。

During the Silver Age of poetic skill revival, Ahmatova and Tsvetayeva, with their distinct personality and poetic aesthetics peculiar to the female poets, got themselves established in the Russian poetic world. Ahmatova was praised as the ‘moon of Russian poetry’ while Tsvetayeva was referred to as the First Russian Poet in the 20th century; this has paved the way for them to be listed among the most significant Russian poets in the 20th century, and implies they have achieved more than any other female poets preceding them over Russian literary history. Ahmatova, a representative of Acmeist poetry, faithfully applies the Acmeist poetic conceptions and aesthetic ideas into her creativity while Tsvetayeva, a poet with an independent personality, never fails to keep the literary idea of being sincere and simple, cherish the spirit of poetry being self-governed and free. Different though they are in aspects such as personality, poetic style and aesthetic taste, they have the common ground in witnessing the social turbulence, political craze, anachronistic cruelty, and fatal torture during the first half of the 20th century. As such, it would prove to be contributive to have a contrastive study of them, exploring their similarities in differences and their differences in the similarities. The two above-mentioned poets, who are totally different in style, have been attracting critics’ attention both in Russia and other parts of the world as well, but most of the scholars, especially the Chinese scholars, are just investigating or examining them as an individual, resulting in the fact that a contrastive study of the two poets remains wanting. This thesis is, therefore, designed to depart from the previous studies, and contrast the two poets’ creation by appropriating the Russian cultural context and historical background. As such, this thesis firstly investigates Ahmatova’s and Tsvetayeva’s life and creation by starting with an introduction of their personality, fate, communication and life as well, and examines the Russian poets’ tragic fate through an analysis of the two poets’ being respectively in exile home and abroad, living and publication. What follows is a close reading of two poets’ poems around topics such as love, city and motherland. This is done with the purpose to display their different view of love, different expressions for passion, and different understanding about the relationship between love and creation, to present their Petersburg- and Moscow-oriented competition and dialogue though they were both nourished by the same traditional Russian culture, and to disclose their choices during the turbulent years, and their ‘strange’ and ardent love towards the motherland. Besides, the thesis has also, from the perspective of poetic skills, analyzed Ahmatova and Tsvetayeva’s difference in sound effect, diction and semanteme, compared their creation ideology and poetic traits, and pointed out the components of their poetic aesthetics.Guided by the philosophy of incorporating literature study and historical and cultural contexts, noticing the intertextuality between text and literary history, this thesis has drawn conclusions as follow: in terms of the poetic spirit, the most obvious similarity between the two poets is, whatever hardships they were involved in, their having never hesitated devoting to poetry, while the biggest difference between them is found in their philosophical consideration towards the world—Tsvetayeva is featured by her refusing the world while Ahmatova is known to accept the world. And from the perspective of aesthetic sense, their difference lies in Ahmatova’s pursuing the reality-oriented homogeneity of poetry and painting and Tsvetayeva’s sticking to the ego-expression-oriented homogeneity of poetry and music, and the most obvious similarity shows itself in that they are both modernist poets, sharing the modernistic tragic view of the world and the art. Ahmatova and Tsvetayeva have, thus, produced on the one hand far-reaching but on the other, different effects upon the later Russian poetic world, which is experimentally illustrated by the example of Brodsky in the last part.